NASA released this picture

NASA released this picture.
Tiny dot is earth, but where is the stars, and cosmic star dust in the background?
NASA forgot to add it?

Other urls found in this thread:

discord.gg/Ycq9yyX
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

you dumb

Just making an observation.
Plus big dog NASA released it, so...

>valid question

It's a picture of earth. NASAs probe near Saturn's rings. Earth is almost a billion miles away. So they say.
Pic from NASA

Exposure. The earth is brighter then the stars so the exposure is too short to capture enough light from the stars

why is this question asked over and over.. ffs
exposure exposure exposure
learn photography.

here's a quickly experiment. go out tonight and take a picture of the moon with your camera.

I guarantee you won't see stars in the photo. same concept

if they increased the exposure, that photo would be bright as fuck but you would be able to see some stars.

your question has been answered.

So from a billion miles away. Near Saturn.
The earth just out shines all the bright stars and the colorful cosmic star dust?

Yes. The nearest star other then our sun is far greater then a billion miles

You don't see stars on a bright sunny day

U would think you would just see so much more stars and star dust the further you leave earth, but I dunno.
It's weird but okay.

1,200,000,000 km vs 9,461,000,000,000 km so yes the earth is alot closer

...

Do you not know how long-time exposure works?

Pictures from hubble often require months of focusing on a tiny spot in space.

I can't speak on the veracity of the picture op posted because it's the first I've seen of it, but you can't be this stupid.

You can see them if you have the apature and exposure set to see them

...

...

Why do you keep saying `star dust`? When you see that `haze` in the night sky , that's just a high density of stars very far away.

Hubble is fake. They do so much "post processing" they are actually just cgi

Ill make you drink my piss at gunpoint

How do they capture light in a non atmosphere

Yes, you fucking ignoramus. The first lights you see in the sky when it starts getting dark are PLANETS.

Mmm... Uranus. Didn't something shoot out of Uranus recently?

Are you actually retarded? Space is massive dingus, it doesn't look the way it does in movies

Actually unless he is in the middle of no where the haze he sees is clouds or pollution. Just too much light to see that detail in most places

Because it's not night time.
You fucking moron.
At nigh you'll see 1% of the stars because you live in a city, in space the "sky" isn't the same as on earth.

Light can travel through a vacuum idiot

Yes... all those rockets I see go into space from my back yard are just doing it for show... I realize this is a troll float earth thread. Which I don't really understand because you can't troll someone into believing the absurd.

How does combustion work in a vacuum in space btw
How does the probe or ship navigate

The reason you can't see the stars in the daytime is because it's too bright, not because the blue sky blocks it. You can sometimes see the moon in the blue sky because it's more than bright enough.

To be fair it sounds like OP probably would mistake a cloud for the milky way.

Especially with those fancy see-thru Dysons

I've seen some of the flat earth stuff.
I dunno man. It's all trippy af to me, but w.e.

So to piggy back off this, don't you think it's strange that we can travel to other stars and build huge space ships for movies like star wars and star trek but yet mass sends these stupid proves that take years to go to another planet and can't even photograph stars?

>flat earth*

Part of the fuel they take up is made up of gas to allow combustion.

That's why ships that rely on combustible fuel carry tanks of liquid oxygen. Other ships don't work on anything that burns so they don't need oxygen

I think everyone could use a refresher course in basic science. Heck, Khan Academy offers free courses. If you have questions, find out what we know about how the world works and the do the homework

Asking questions with no basis in fundamental knowledge will leave you frustrated rather than satisfied when you learn the answer

For long distances, they use different fuel mixtures depending on the purpose of the mission. For combustion purposes, they use liquid oxygen as an oxidizer, with hydrogen or kerosene or methane.

Small probes do maneuvers with compressed gas jets, which requires no combustion.

Oh look NASA trolls. This is BS.

>I dunno man. It's all trippy af to me, but w.e
just stick to what you're good at. you don't have the cognitive capacity to comprehend astronomy.

this is why many people believe in conspiracy theories; they're far more easy to understand than reality.

Oh, okay. I see. That's cool.

Have you ever looked in a night sky and noticed how both Venus and Jupiter when visible are much much brighter than any star in the sky ? Go figure.

Well i live on the earth and i can tell you it does not shine at all.

>Oh look NASA trolls. This is BS.
aka
>fuck, actual science. I can't compete. TROLLS!!!

You can watch real time videos of the earth from satellites around the clock.

What about NASA is bullshit? Do you not agree the earth is round?

>This is BS.

What, why?

discord.gg/Ycq9yyX

Lmao. That's pretty funny

Cgi faggot

Nothing if there is a vacuum there is nothing to propel a craft

Theres no atmosphere for the craft to push against... So how would it navigate?

Can't argue with that. Pack up guys.

Flat earthers: 1
NASA fags: 0

Nothing except the large flaming jet of exhaust coming out the back of it.

heres a suggestion.
if u dont know anything about space or photography maybe you shouldnt assume shit when u ask retarded questions.

exposure. your welcome.

By violently expelling gas out its back side

are you implying that motion is impossible in a vacuum, because that is demonstrably false

I think he means that stuff that moves past the cockpit in space sim video games.

go back to r/science user

I think this is a selfie

I do this when I'm on the can, I don't fly out of the atmosphere

I'm not one to support nasa or any governing body or company out to make a profit but the low light emitted by starts could just not be being picked up because of contrast setting. I imagine if you're trying to take a picture of only bodies in our solar system then you would set the camera in a way that back ground light is cut out so you can see the little white dot that is earth in that picture. Would be far more confusing to tell what it all is if stars are captured in the pic also the way out galaxy is set up the highest concentration of stars are in a belt/line and that angle could be cutting out the rest of our galaxy. Again not saying the photo isn't a fake just stating possible answer to your question

i don't browse there.
what are you trying to say?

But the gas has nothing to push against... The gas would blow but it would have no effect on the craft...

>logic wins

The laws of physics. Equal and opposite reactions. Thrust goes out one way, the probe goes the other. Satellites around earth have small thrusters around the spacecraft that can make small adjustments to the spacecraft, but they don't have enough fuel to really send it anywhere. That's why it's so important to get your position correct from the initial launch.

you were rood to that guy
you just seem like a wojak

Wait what the fuck you talking about

They also say global warming and climate change is real.....so there you go.

So if I point a rocket down it will push earth off it's orbit by your logic

You should look up how they engineer the nozzle on the end of a rocket engine (the thing that spits out the flames that push the rocket).

Interesting physics behind it.

what?

nothing I said should come across as insulting or 'rude'
It's true. stick to what you're good at.

tired of victim cards
'oh no he insulted him/me!'

Ok NASA troll

The gas has the vessel (rocket) to push against, dumbass.

Yes. If you strap a rocket face down you will cause the Earth to move. But the movement would be so damn minute.

If it's coming out bits not pushing. It would have to be coming at the craft to push not away

It's not a victim card, it's a science douche card you cunt
>tfw too intelligent to notice sarcasm

But yet it pushes proves to Pluto. Make up your mind fag

No stars? THE EARTH IS FLAT

wat

You people are missing the point... Vaccum, no atmosphere, no equal opposite force law of nature apply in this case. Craft cannot move. Its all fake.

>What is camera exposure

A probe is much smaller than a planet

and I see you're still reactionary

>oh i was just trolling
when you were caught being stupid.

You are a little late dude

Yes, actually

If you had a large enough rocket, yes, you could alter earth's orbit.

At the point you alter the orbit would not change all that much, the opposite end of the orbit would be affected the most.

And depending on the placement of the engine, time of day and duration of burn would affect how you change the orbit, whether we got closer to the sun, further, or if you simply changed the incline of the orbit.

>Vaccum
yup
>no atmosphere
yup
>no equal opposite force law of nature apply in this case
nope

why do you believe this

So? Every action has an other equal other action. Don't matter on size

Then how come there's tons of other photos with planets and stars and shit?

Cgi

Are you claiming that stars don't exist OP? then how do you explain what you're seeing, when you look up at a nights sky?

(you guys know that this is just a troll thread, right?)

It's Sup Forums user, go to a board that accepts intellectual autists

But its not pushing againts the vessel it expelling out... Into nothing. Go stand in front of a wall and push yourself back with both hands.... Now remove the wall and try to push yourself back with both hands... You see?

He's suggesting that the photo is fake due to the lack of stars

Wow, I didn't realize its snowing in america. that guy in the red shirt must be freezing!

Size does matter because the opposite reaction is the force given to the object.

a = f / m

So the acceleration you get is based on the force given and the mass of the object. A larger mass will accelerate slower than a smaller mass.

Can you give me an example?

We didn't have CGI in the 60's you retard